[quote][quote]&nbsp;in terms of placements the B schools that have done fairly well (85-90% in employment rates) are LBS, Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick. Whereas I have already stated the employment rates of Durham and Imperial..not so impressive tbh. Last year Durham's employment rate was 53% and it's average 3 year employment rate is 73% even Imperial's avg. employment rate isn't good. [/quote]<br><br>You are simply mistaken. The FT Global MBA 2023 has the most up-to-date numbers available. All UK schools mentioned have 86% placement or higher.&nbsp; See https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2909/mba-2023&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Hi Duncan,<br><br>I have quoted the average 3 year employment rate of B Schools. In FT 2023 ranking Birmingham Business School's MBA has been ranked after missing out from the ranking in I don't know how many years. So now will you call Birmingham's MBA better than Lancaster. The same goes to Cranfield, it's MBA didn't make the cut consecutively for 3 years as well. so just on the basis of the FT 2023 rankings I won't judge the Business schools. Hence I took the 3 year average employment rate and Imperial, Bayes and Durham didn't do very well. Post Brexit (2020) the average 3 year employment rate of Bayes has been just 83% and that of Imperial has been 82% and Durham's has been 73% Another point to be noted is that the audit year of FT 2023 for many B schools is 2018.<br><br>This year's rankings are tbh a bit confusing. FT has changed a lot of criteria, example, they now give move emphasis on carbon footprint of the b school than the salary, now that's very weird. 17 B schools have fallen out of the MBA rankings this year because of such confusing and some what unnecessary changes. Hence if I was a candidate then I would take FT 2023 MBA rankings with a grain of salt and not pay much heed into it.

If you think that averaging placement over the pandemic and lock down years is a better guide to future performance than the most recent year, then I will step out of the conversation.&nbsp;

[quote]If you think that averaging placement over the pandemic and lock down years is a better guide to future performance than the most recent year, then I will step out of the conversation.&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>Hi Duncan, have to disagree with you here. You said to look at the placement records post Brexit (after 2020), hence I took the employment rates of 2021, 2022 and 2023. Now if you want to consider before Brexit then we have to start over again. And if you think that the placement performance during the pandemic isn't a good option then imo only relying on the 2023 FT rankings (which btw have some very weird criteria) isn't a wise decision either.<br><br><div>Btw the FT 2023 rankings have put more emphasis on carbon footprint of the b school then the salary. Now I am not an expert on this matter but what has carbon footprint got to do with the performance of the B Schools..beats me tbh. This year's FT rankings are based on some confusing and unnecessary changes, so just relying on the FT 2023 rankings to make your choice will be a pretty lousy decision.&nbsp;<br><br>Now if you want to look at the placement record of these b schools before Brexit (3 years prior to Brexit to be precise) then let me give you the data for the same. We will consider the placements of Durham, Lancaster, Bayes, Imperial and AMBS for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.<br></div><br>1. Durham -&gt; 2017: 89% 2018: 91% and 2019: 94%<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Avg: 91%<br>2. Imperial -&gt;&nbsp; 2017: 92% 2018: 90% and 2019: 82%<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Avg: 88%<br>3. Bayes -&gt;.&nbsp; &nbsp; 2017: 83% 2018: 83% and 2019: 82%<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Avg: 83%<br>4. AMBS -&gt;.&nbsp; &nbsp; 2017: 76% 2018: 76% and 2019: 77%<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Avg: 76%<br>5. LUMS -&gt;.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2017: 86% 201: 82% and 2019: 85%<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Avg: 84%<br><br>From the above data we can say that only Durham and to some exten Imperial have done a fair job in keeping a good placement record. Lancaster narrowly beats Bayes and both have done decent to good in terms of placements from 2017-19 and AMBS one of the premier business schools have just recorded 76% average employment rate in 3 years prior to Brexit.&nbsp;<br><br>Finally regarding the most recent rankings due to so many changes in the methodology, I still have reservations about it and still won't conside it to be an appropriate guide for B school selection. Since there have been mammoth changes, some are very illogical, hence we have to at least give 2-3 years to this new methodology adopted by FT.&nbsp;

With the conversation going on, I'd like to add that there are some batchmates (who can afford to) that are still waiting for the right job opportunities. They came across similar profiles earlier but rugged them under for the ones they aspire. If you study in the top 5, you could receive more calls/ mails from recruiters, which is not being spoken of enough in this thread. It has to be well balanced between the right skills and a reputed business school. What I am a 100% aure of is that the person with the least troubles would be the one who wants to continue with the exact same profile as that of pre-MBA. Hope this helps!&nbsp;

[quote]With the conversation going on, I'd like to add that there are some batchmates (who can afford to) that are still waiting for the right job opportunities. They came across similar profiles earlier but rugged them under for the ones they aspire. If you study in the top 5, you could receive more calls/ mails from recruiters, which is not being spoken of enough in this thread. It has to be well balanced between the right skills and a reputed business school. What I am a 100% aure of is that the person with the least troubles would be the one who wants to continue with the exact same profile as that of pre-MBA. Hope this helps!&nbsp; [/quote]<br><br>As I mentioned earlier, if you don't have the right skill sets then even if you get your MBA degree from AMBS you will find difficulties in getting a job. The above data from 2017-19 shows that LUMS has a better employment rate than AMBS, the reason is the students who studied in LUMS from 2017-19 might have better skill sets then those who went to AMBS during the same period. Except for say the top 3 or 4 the rest of the B schools in the top 10 list will provide more of less similar employment opportunities to the candidates it's upto the candidate how they utilise these opportunities.&nbsp;<br><br>So if the students who can't target the top 3-4 B schools for various reasons, they shouldn't be disheartened and try for the rest of the B schools in the top 10 regional list as they too will provide the good employment opportunities to the candidates.&nbsp;<br><br>Another thing I would like to mention here, if the UK employers would have only preferred graduates from the top 3-4 b schools then the rest of the B schools should have closed their doors by now..I am pretty sure that's not the case.&nbsp;

You are comparing apples with oranges. The longer MBA format at LBS and AMBS is aimed at career switchers, who are harder to place. Unlike Lancaster, AMBS students are typically changing at least two and often three of role, country and industry.

[quote]You are comparing apples with oranges. The longer MBA format at LBS and AMBS is aimed at career switchers, who are harder to place. Unlike Lancaster, AMBS students are typically changing at least two and often three of role, country and industry. [/quote]<br><br>Well Duncan, I already told you that the top 3-4 B schools are not in contention. I was looking at the rest of the B schools in the top 10 list. AMBS is no doubt one of the best B Schools and can be considered in the top 4 but the rest I would say pretty much offers similar roles and career opportunities to the candidates. This whole thread is not aimed at the top 3-4 B schools. LBS, Oxford, Cambridge and even AMBS are obviously great choices but are they only B schools that you should target. Obviously not. Not all can get an admit to the top 4 b schools and even if they can the course fee to some is very high. So as a candidate if you don't make it to the top 4 then there's nothing to get disheartened. You still have the rest of the B schools from the top 10 list and each one of them are equally good at placing students. I gave the example of AMBS to point out that even a top b schools can sometimes produce very low numbers when it comes to placements. So unless you have the skill sets, the brand name of the b schools will not always work in favour of you. And as I said if a candidate can't make it to the top 4 then he or she should definitely target the rest of the MBA programmes in the top 10 list to have decent to good career opportunities.&nbsp;<br><br>Anyway it was good discussion that we had here. I have stated my point and hope I could help others. I rest my case now !! Thank you&nbsp;